Celluloid no more: distribution of film to cease by 2013 in the US

A report projects movie studios will go completely digital in the near future.

A recent report from IHS Screen Digest, a company that analyzes trends in digital media, says that movie studios will cease producing 35mm film prints for major markets by the end of 2013 (the US, France, the UK, Japan, and Australia are considered "major markets"). IHS predicts studios will stop producing film for the rest of the world by 2015.

The death of traditional film—outside of art house films and the occasional film student project—has been a long time coming. Film reels are more expensive than digital storage, degrade faster, and are physically much heavier to ship and carry around. Ars noted in 2006 that Canon and Nikon were taking losses on film cameras. We reported a few months later that some filmmakers felt that digital film produced better movies, as it allowed them to keep the camera running while actors performed, rather than spending money on long rehearsals, only shooting when necessary.

According to the IHS study, another factor is pushing studios to make the change from film to digital: the price of silver shot up. What was once $5 is now about $28 an ounce. Silver crystals coat traditional film and help create the filmed image after exposure.

While economics may be spurring directors toward digital movies, theaters aren’t following quite so quickly. "51.5 percent of worldwide screens had digital projectors at the end of 2011," said Deadline. While that's an 82 percent increase from the year before, the move from film to digital will almost certainly create a burden on theaters to invest money they may not have on new projection technology. Digital projection systems can cost between $70,000 to $100,000 and small town movie houses will have trouble coming up with that cash.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that as many as 10 percent of US theaters could shut down over the cost.

At one point, the IHS report said, 13 billion feet of film were shuttled around the globe every year, "equal to five trips to the moon and back," according to Deadline. By 2010, that number had decreased to 5 billion feet of film.

Certainly won't hear me pining for the days of film. Digital projection is uncannily good, and the ramifications for the preservation of the art are immeasurable. Resolution and color depth are already at or near better-than-film levels, and will only continue to improve. Any reason to prefer film has more to do with style infatuations and heroic legends than anything else.

The really interesting question is whether cinemas will go away altogether in 10 years once large screen LED TVs become common in the household. Will they finally cave and just let you rent new release movies straight to your home?

On some level that is sad, the social aspect of cinemas is fun. Somehow, let's go for "dinner and come back and sit our butts on the couch" doesn't quite have the appeal of lets go out for a 'dinner and a movie'.

Weird, I recently read the opposite, that it is more expensive to store digital media as digital storage needs running computers compared to storage rooms for film reels, that studios on occasion have accidentally delete entire projects or the fact that films are saved in so many different formats, that they cannot watch digital films from the late 1990s today, at least not without finding ancient converters. Or having old computers lying around for this purpose alone.

Weird, I recently read the opposite, that it is more expensive to store digital media as digital storage needs running computers compared to storage rooms for film reels, that studios on occasion have accidentally delete entire projects or the fact that films are saved in so many different formats, that they cannot watch digital films from the late 1990s today, at least not without finding ancient converters. Or having old computers lying around for this purpose alone.

That is not worth mentioning in the article?

I didn't find that perspective in my research but if you have a link to the story that'd be helpful! I'll take a look around and follow up if I can find something reliable. Thanks!

At one point, the IHS report said, 13 billion feet of film were shuttled around the globe every year, "equal to five trips to the moon and back," according to Deadline. By 2010, that number had decreased to 5 billion feet of film.

If this isn't clear evidence that torrents are increasing then I don't know what is. Someone notify the MPAA!

One thing not mentioned in the story regarding costs for less-wealthy theaters is that the studios and distributors actually do have programs to finance new digital projectors with the cost being repaid from the difference in subsequent price of the theater getting copies of new movies.

Essentially, one of the big players fronts the thater the money to buy a new digital projector. Then, for the next N releases, the theatre continues to pay film prices, rather than much lower digital prices, until the projector is paid off. Thus, any theatre that's cash-flow positive now with film can stay about level while getting a new projector, and eventually seeing lower costs.

Weird, I recently read the opposite, that it is more expensive to store digital media as digital storage needs running computers compared to storage rooms for film reels, that studios on occasion have accidentally delete entire projects or the fact that films are saved in so many different formats, that they cannot watch digital films from the late 1990s today, at least not without finding ancient converters. Or having old computers lying around for this purpose alone.

That is not worth mentioning in the article?

I didn't find that perspective in my research but if you have a link to the story that'd be helpful! I'll take a look around and follow up if I can find something reliable. Thanks!

(If the LA times is good for anything, it's reporting on the film industry)

tl;dr - The economics of digital are largely driving the change (some pressure from directors who find that digital gear is easier to use in some circumstances). But the economics are favorable for ONLY the big studios. Not the cinemas.

They say no there will be no more film, but from what I understand, the old IMAX theaters still use film. The technology to replicate IMAX isn't around yet, just look at how unpopular digital IMAX is, because of its "inferior" quality. How can there be no film without theaters like the Metreon closing.

"Digital Cinema" is a nightmare for film archives. Even if studios would supply an unencripted DCP to film archives, how long do you think a hard disk lasts?

How long does magnetic tape last?

A new polyester film stored on a film fridge (dry cold) lasts for 100 years (and that only because the colour chemicals start to degrade). Newly-made B&W film or color separations on B&W films lasts for several centuries. And all you need to retrieve the images is an intermittent movement, a light, and a lens. No computers, algorithms, or code.

Film degrades when it's run through a projector, picking up dirt and scratches - go to see a movie in the second week and the deterioration of the print will already be painfully obvious. But for archival purposes, colour-separated silver prints beat anything else we have, especially digital. But I think everyone knows that.

Weird, I recently read the opposite, that it is more expensive to store digital media as digital storage needs running computers compared to storage rooms for film reels, that studios on occasion have accidentally delete entire projects or the fact that films are saved in so many different formats, that they cannot watch digital films from the late 1990s today, at least not without finding ancient converters. Or having old computers lying around for this purpose alone.

That is not worth mentioning in the article?

I didn't find that perspective in my research but if you have a link to the story that'd be helpful! I'll take a look around and follow up if I can find something reliable. Thanks!

Here are a couple of stories on the topic of film being the perfered medium of archival.

The basic jist. When they archive a film for long term preservation its not the same type of film used for commerical theater play. The film they use has a life span of over 100 years and that is before they store them in the salt mine in MO which is the perfect conditions for longetivity.

Weird, I recently read the opposite, that it is more expensive to store digital media as digital storage needs running computers compared to storage rooms for film reels, that studios on occasion have accidentally delete entire projects or the fact that films are saved in so many different formats, that they cannot watch digital films from the late 1990s today, at least not without finding ancient converters. Or having old computers lying around for this purpose alone.

That is not worth mentioning in the article?

I didn't find that perspective in my research but if you have a link to the story that'd be helpful! I'll take a look around and follow up if I can find something reliable. Thanks!

(If the LA times is good for anything, it's reporting on the film industry)

tl;dr - The economics of digital are largely driving the change (some pressure from directors who find that digital gear is easier to use in some circumstances). But the economics are favorable for ONLY the big studios. Not the cinemas.

As usual, it's the Golden rule - he who has the gold, rules.

Ah, thank you, I actually read the article in Danish, but now that I review it, I see it refers back to that article.

The article doesn't clearly distinguish between the technology used to shoot the movie, and the technology used to distribute the movie. They can be completely independent of each other.

A movie can be shot on film, edited on film, then printed on film for distribution or scanned digitally for distribution. Alternatively it could be digital through the whole process or a digital intermediate is used for editing, then still printed to film for distributing.

Even if all theatres go to digital projection, shooting movies on film will be around for a lot longer, due to the perceived quality and dynamic range advantages. Only recently have the latest (and very expensive) Sony cameras achieved dynamic ranges approaching traditional film. Not to mention that film makers tend to be a bit stubborn in their ways.

It seems that the movie industry is going the same way as games in that the budgets are getting either bigger for the major studio projects, or much smaller for the independents. Hopefully though, the independent film makers will be able to achieve the same type of distribution as the small developers in the game industry (at least outside of the nonsense of the film festivals).

Is this the point were digital is "good enough" compared to film with economics biasing it towards one or the other, quality issues notwithstanding?

Distrubtors want digital because its much cheaper. It cost about 3 to 4 thousand dollars for every film print between the actual cost of making the print and shipping it to theaters. Every hour of 35mm film weighs about 50 pounds. When you hear that the marketing cost is about half of a films budget this is because prints and distrubution is included. Releasing on 9000 screens in NA alone which is not uncommon this adds up fast.

Actually, the title is way off. See, while silver film may be going out, silver SCREENS are coming back huge. For a long time, they had moved to matte white screens for film. However, the huge recent increase in 3D films has brought silver screens back. They have a higher gain and the polarity requirements of modern glasses need the special properties of silver screens.So, long live the silver screen, but digital photography is coming up huge. Esp when you only have 24 min of film per reel, and the changeout is annoying.

Why are people shifting their cash into precious metals. Basically because governments seem to believe that you can simply print money without having a deflationary effect on your currency.

Also, because governments have decided to lend currency to the banks so they can manage (just about) to pay off the interest on their existing debts. (Don't ask how creating more debt does anything to help the situation. Yes, I know if you our I went into our bank and asked for another loan because we can't afford the one we have already....)

So, if your currency falls, you still have some liquidity left, and still have the option of selling your precious metals on the open global market.

But at the moment you have Rich/Wise people shifting some of their liquid assets into precious metals. Demand increase, the supply goes down, the price goes up.

Actually, the title is way off. See, while silver film may be going out, silver SCREENS are coming back huge. For a long time, they had moved to matte white screens for film. However, the huge recent increase in 3D films has brought silver screens back. They have a higher gain and the polarity requirements of modern glasses need the special properties of silver screens.So, long live the silver screen, but digital photography is coming up huge. Esp when you only have 24 min of film per reel, and the changeout is annoying.

Wow! That's fantastic, I'd always thought "silver screen" was a phrase for the screen that a silver-coated film was projected upon, not the actual color of the screen. But yep, silver screens are coming back due to 3D. Thanks for the heads up!

Supposedly Dolby is working on a new white screen for 3D, but it is not there yet. The problem when installing a silver screen is that it is much more fragile. Any oils from your skin ruin it. A white screen is much more durable, and easier to wash (washing is always done with hot water only after dusting it first). And trust me, soda stains are annoying to get out.

Film degrades when it's run through a projector, picking up dirt and scratches - go to see a movie in the second week and the deterioration of the print will already be painfully obvious. But for archival purposes, colour-separated silver prints beat anything else we have, especially digital. But I think everyone knows that.

I don't think the big studios care much for the ability to archive cinema prints. They likely have backup regimes in place so that they can release is some decades down the road when the kids today are established working adults (given the world economy do not go really down the toilet by then) and feeling a need to recapture their youth. Or they could not care less about archiving, as they can just shoot a remake down the road and so retain IP for another 90 some years.

This is about short term costs to having to make all those prints, and perhaps even make new ones if it proved so successful that it get extended runs and the current prints are degrading from overuse.

"Digital Cinema" is a nightmare for film archives. Even if studios would supply an unencripted DCP to film archives, how long do you think a hard disk lasts?

How long does magnetic tape last?

A new polyester film stored on a film fridge (dry cold) lasts for 100 years (and that only because the colour chemicals start to degrade). Newly-made B&W film or color separations on B&W films lasts for several centuries. And all you need to retrieve the images is an intermittent movement, a light, and a lens. No computers, algorithms, or code.

I'd suggest that in the last 20-30 years archives have gone from financial burden to money-generating asset. Especially once it's digitized. Everything digital has a faster path to revenue than anything film-based. DVD's, Blu-Rays, collector packs, compilations, best-of's - all easier in the digital domain.

Weird, I recently read the opposite, that it is more expensive to store digital media as digital storage needs running computers compared to storage rooms for film reels, that studios on occasion have accidentally delete entire projects or the fact that films are saved in so many different formats, that they cannot watch digital films from the late 1990s today, at least not without finding ancient converters. Or having old computers lying around for this purpose alone.

That is not worth mentioning in the article?

Digital movies are also infinitely duplicateable and don't set themselves on fire randomly, then continue until nothings left, Film produces oxygen when it's on fire, you can't stop it once it's started.

"Digital Cinema" is a nightmare for film archives. Even if studios would supply an unencripted DCP to film archives, how long do you think a hard disk lasts?

How long does magnetic tape last?

A new polyester film stored on a film fridge (dry cold) lasts for 100 years (and that only because the colour chemicals start to degrade). Newly-made B&W film or color separations on B&W films lasts for several centuries. And all you need to retrieve the images is an intermittent movement, a light, and a lens. No computers, algorithms, or code.

It will get better though. We'll figure out storage as we did with film. Film was an imperfect medium for storage as well. How many movies were lost due to use of nitrate-based films where it was a major fire hazard for one, and would simply deteriorate in the film canister. We eventually solved that. We'll solve the problem of digital storage also.

And, we also forget that for long-term storage we can always opt to convert to color-separated B&W film, then lock that film up in the salt-mines for storage. 200 years from now if someone is feeling nostalgic for Apocalypse Now, some company can re-digitize from the film and show it if it's not available already in "the cloud" or whatever they'll have then.

I'd love to see an Ars article about how the film industry stores and archives their footage.

There is evidence that Peter Jackson has shot somewhere around 25PB worth of footage for The Hobbit, and I wonder how much of that original footage gets kept around and how much (if any) is permanently deleted.

Okay.... If they are going to do away with celluloid copies, why are we paying more to watch a movie every single year? Removing the physical distributing channels should greatly reduce their cost, no?

And considering that editing should now be easier and without any celluloid wastage, shouldn't the process be cheaper and faster?!